Is a fertilized egg a "person"...? Mississippi is voting on just that...an initiative to define personhood for the unborn.

Opinions? If the premise that a fetus doesn't have "the right to life" because it's not legally a person, then wouldn't changing the legal definition of a person to include a fertilized egg be a legitimate argument. After all, the legal right to an abortion in the U.S. is predicated upon the supposition that an unborn fetus is not a person...however, a huge contradiction exists because the law allows for the death of a fetus at the hands of a person OTHER than the mother as "fetal homocide" and "fetacide", a criminal offense.

My opinion, for those who don't know, is that abortion and the trivializing of the unborn erodes our humanity. As an atheist, I don't base this belief in religion but the unwavering stance that when we look at the unborn as mere "tissue" to be excised at will, we all lose some of our humanity.

stu wrote: Probably Bellatori, although the only neckwear of a preacher that I would like to wear and act as in real life would be one similar to what clint wore in pale rider. Then I could go from town to town etc cleaning it up my way.

stu wrote:precisely polyglide, it is not a human being yet according to law.

Where would that leave the morning after pill. It simply 'discourages' implantation - a problem that happens with 25% of all fertilised eggs anyway. According to this law then simply having a miscarriage could be construed as an abortion which I suppose it is if you care to look at things in a particular (and odd) way.

stu wrote:spin is just being totally sick on peters thread at the moment, i've had to calm down before posting to peter. It was when TSC Was answering my post on there.

Best let him alone Stu, I noticed that he's even more nasty and aggressive than usual on there, and that's some achievement. After just a a few weeks of nor reading or posting and a fairly brief catch up read his behaviour has definitely deteriorated.

stu wrote:spin is just being totally sick on peters thread at the moment, i've had to calm down before posting to peter. It was when TSC Was answering my post on there.

Best let him alone Stu, I noticed that he's even more nasty and aggressive than usual on there, and that's some achievement. After just a a few weeks of nor reading or posting and a fairly brief catch up read his behaviour has definitely deteriorated.

I agree... stu.... you have to ignore him. He is clearly a nasty piece of work but you cannot let yourself get upset by him.

stu wrote:spin is just being totally sick on peters thread at the moment, i've had to calm down before posting to peter. It was when TSC Was answering my post on there.

Best let him alone Stu, I noticed that he's even more nasty and aggressive than usual on there, and that's some achievement. After just a a few weeks of nor reading or posting and a fairly brief catch up read his behaviour has definitely deteriorated.

I noticed he claimed the people who started posting on here had been banned over here. Obviously in the hope people would post denying this so he could then claim said people had 'no honour', to use his rather odd phrase, by returning there. He's a weirdo tbh. He reckons he's in his 40s with kids but he's on there all hours trying to get a bite.

Bellatori, to save me the hassle, and how many women have spontaneous miscarriages? Is that abortion too? surely not my fellow man, who god doeth look upon with love and kindness as does he all his creatures,bless you.

stu wrote:precisely polyglide, it is not a human being yet according to law.

Where would that leave the morning after pill. It simply 'discourages' implantation - a problem that happens with 25% of all fertilised eggs anyway. According to this law then simply having a miscarriage could be construed as an abortion which I suppose it is if you care to look at things in a particular (and odd) way.

I think most people abhor abortion, but recognise there are times where it is a necessity, and of course most of us recognise the right of a women to decide when that is. Medical science has given us a great deal of knowledge about the development of a foetus from the moment of conception. I usually find that most "pro life" campaigners use hyperbole to distort the issue. Using emotive terms like murder, and babies, or even infanticide. These don't help their argument as far as I am concerned, as they are not reasoned cogent arguments, and of course I can see that there will always be circumstances where abortion is necessary, and despite what we sometimes hear from some sections of the debate, we have laws to protect the rights of the developing foetus. If those laws need altering or strengthening then the discussion has to centre on scientific facts, not emotive hyperbole, as is unfortunately so often the case. I am certainly all for better efforts at educating men and women about contraception and safe sex, as this is worthwhile for many reasons, and would certainly help eliminate the instances where a small percentage of women use abortion as contraception. the irony here of course is that a lot of theists want to take the disastrous step of making abortions illegal, would also try to stop sex education in schools, those two steps together would be an absolute disaster.

stu wrote:spin is just being totally sick on peters thread at the moment, i've had to calm down before posting to peter. It was when TSC Was answering my post on there.

Best let him alone Stu, I noticed that he's even more nasty and aggressive than usual on there, and that's some achievement. After just a a few weeks of nor reading or posting and a fairly brief catch up read his behaviour has definitely deteriorated.

I noticed he claimed the people who started posting on here had been banned over here. Obviously in the hope people would post denying this so he could then claim said people had 'no honour', to use his rather odd phrase, by returning there. He's a weirdo tbh. He reckons he's in his 40s with kids but he's on there all hours trying to get a bite.

He did that, and when TSC asked who'd been banned I said no one, and gave a link. He didn't like that and started attacking me again, but in a sly indirect way as he couldn't argue with the link or the lie it made of his post. He strikes me as a young teenager with few if any friends tbh. If he's married let alone with children that's deeply worrying. I guess most people like discussion and polemic or they wouldn't go to sites where these things occurred, but there are no lengths which he won't go to, and no depths he won't sink to, in order to provoke other posters. He then unashamedly tries to paint the any poster who's entered into discussion with him as a bully, ignorant, part of a "forum mafia", not interested in real debate etc etc.. bizarre indeed. What's doubly odd is when you stick to your guns and don't let him bully you he seems to get genuinely angry.

I was about to make a similar reply when he posted the lie about the (nonexistent) bannings but I suspect that's what he wanted. He'll get a kick out of it if he realises we're discussing him on here as well

Sheldon my dear chap, Bellatori suggested because I wanted a perfect world, instead of just a free world where people can do as they wish within the law. that I BECOME A MEMBER OF THE CLERGY? also wear rose tinted spectacles? so I have done both. Now to attack poor spin in such a way I have asked gods forgiveness for you, and if you wish to confess your problems with us here i am sure we will find time for a clearly tortured soul such as yourself.

JP - I understand why anti-abortionists use emotional language when putting forward their case against abortion, as it is one of the most emotive subjects under debate at the moment. 'Thou shalt not kill' is true enough, although there are many grey areas that call into question our use of the word 'kill'. The mercy killing of animals, for instance, shows our humanity, yet when we send a criminal to the electric chair, we call it 'justice'. Euthanasia is another sensitive and complicated subject which stirs up emotional reactions on both sides of the fence - is it kinder to allow someone to die peacefully and painlessly within the bounds of the law under their instruction, or should we forbid it?

I've found that when given the knowledge that their child will be severely disabled, and may not live very long, many women choose to continue with the pregnancy. In many cases it will spontaneously abort or be a still birth at full term. Many women will choose to abort the foetus early on. This is their choice, with the advice and support of their doctor and family. It isn't an easy decision to have to make.

If you want to make a woman feel guilty for having to make the choice between life and death, then yes, religion will succeed in its mission. It is black or white. But you won't stop a woman needing an abortion, if that is what she requires.

stu wrote:It actually comes under both JP.or why do you quote biblical crap at us every time law is mentioned.?

That is because you and your kind are forcing the trashy subject into religion where it does not belong. It is the non-religious who do not believe in God who view an unborn baby as your property which you can kill and dispose of without any reference to God.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:That's pointless hyperbole, and a falsehood to boot, your rather silly generalisations don't help your cause, any more than the empty rhetoric or inflated hyperbole.

The only reason for your kind to keep putting the abortion into religion is because of your own guilty conscience as deep down everyone of you know that it is murder indeed.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:So religion has nothing to say on abortion? Do behave, that statement is idiotic even by the standard you normally set with your posts. As for trying to correlate abortion with murder, it's not very original, and it's exactly the kind of hyperbole I keep telling you will not help your cause. Consider this, every humans sheds enough cells each day to clone themselves a thousand times over. Now if and when the technology to clone a human is ever achieved would that make every cell discarded a case of murder? The reason I ask is that a foetus in it's very early stages of development is just a collection of insentient cells, a Blastocyst, with the potential to become a human, and which you are loudly claiming the termination of is murder, think about what that means in the scenario my question has been framed.

This is your attempt to fool people and not mine. If the abortionist had any pride or backbone then they would take the subject out of religion where their guilty conscience keeps bringing then back again and again and again.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Well I've already pointed out how idiotic a statement it is to suggest abortion is a topic that does not belong in a religious context, but if you wish to compound that idiocy it's your choice. As for pride and backbone, you're talking about medical professionals i presume? I'd suggest that particular group who do more in a day to help alleviate the suffering of others than most people do in a lifetime, so again your statement is puerile nonsense, laden with hyperbole and empty rhetoric, and you really ought to read your posts a few times before posting such drivel.

Last edited by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:00 pm; edited 1 time in total

Kazza wrote:JP - I understand why anti-abortionists use emotional language when putting forward their case against abortion, as it is one of the most emotive subjects under debate at the moment. 'Thou shalt not kill' is true enough, although there are many grey areas that call into question our use of the word 'kill'. The mercy killing of animals, for instance, shows our humanity, yet when we send a criminal to the electric chair, we call it 'justice'. Euthanasia is another sensitive and complicated subject which stirs up emotional reactions on both sides of the fence - is it kinder to allow someone to die peacefully and painlessly within the bounds of the law under their instruction, or should we forbid it?

I've found that when given the knowledge that their child will be severely disabled, and may not live very long, many women choose to continue with the pregnancy. In many cases it will spontaneously abort or be a still birth at full term. Many women will choose to abort the foetus early on. This is their choice, with the advice and support of their doctor and family. It isn't an easy decision to have to make.

If you want to make a woman feel guilty for having to make the choice between life and death, then yes, religion will succeed in its mission. It is black or white. But you won't stop a woman needing an abortion, if that is what she requires.

I couldn't agree more. Here's another thing that has always struck me as yet another of those illogical paradoxes that religion produces. Theists throughout history have been happy enough to line up on a battlefield, or in a at an inquisition, or courtroom, with the full blessing of their church, and perpetrate the most heinous and egregiously bad tortures and murder upon their fellow humans, humans who have a fully formed central nervous system, and brain, and can therefore suffer unimaginable pain, both physical and emotional. Yet whenever the destruction of an insentient group of cells becomes the topic the hate, anger, and inflated hyperbole reaches a baffling level of hysteria by comparison.

I've given the matter some thought, and perhaps it's an innate instinct we all have to protect a baby or child being indulged with pure emotion, rather than reason and logic being used to see the actual truth. Of course this is just one man's opinion, based on how powerful my own emotions become whenever I think of my grand children and the fear of anything bad happening to them. Religion itself quite obviously speaks to the emotional or instinctive side of our natures, rather than the logical reasoning side, perhaps that's why this topic tends generally to resonate so illogically with theists than atheists?

I think what makes it such an emotive subject Sheldon is the fact that it is a baby, and that's when your own and most peoples protective instincts come out. Just about 95% of the population when asked about a baby, picture it at 3months old in nappies. If they have children or grandchildren then they picture them, not as the ten year olds they are now but when they were younger, as people believe it or not prefer the children at that age cos everyone goes awe bless when they see them. It is called natural instinct. that is the psychology part of my nursing coming out.

Last edited by stu on Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:08 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : ADDING THOUGHTS)

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:...Here's another thing that has always struck me as yet another of those illogical paradoxes that religion produces. Theists throughout history have been happy enough to line up on a battlefield, or in a at an inquisition, or courtroom, with the full blessing of their church, and perpetrate the most heinous and egregiously bad tortures and murder upon their fellow humans, humans who have a fully formed central nervous system, and brain, and can therefore suffer unimaginable pain, both physical and emotional. Yet whenever the destruction of an insentient group of cells becomes the topic the hate, anger, and inflated hyperbole reaches a baffling level of hysteria by comparison. ...

You have Pope Urban II to thank for that. He was the first one to redefine"Thou shalt not kill"with the rider that it was OK if it was not a Christian. After that anything was fair game .

Last edited by Bellatori on Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:16 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : missed a close bracket on quote)

Kazza wrote:JP - I understand why anti-abortionists use emotional language when putting forward their case against abortion, as it is one of the most emotive subjects under debate at the moment. 'Thou shalt not kill' is true enough, although there are many grey areas that call into question our use of the word 'kill'. The mercy killing of animals, for instance, shows our humanity, yet when we send a criminal to the electric chair, we call it 'justice'. Euthanasia is another sensitive and complicated subject which stirs up emotional reactions on both sides of the fence - is it kinder to allow someone to die peacefully and painlessly within the bounds of the law under their instruction, or should we forbid it?

I've found that when given the knowledge that their child will be severely disabled, and may not live very long, many women choose to continue with the pregnancy. In many cases it will spontaneously abort or be a still birth at full term. Many women will choose to abort the foetus early on. This is their choice, with the advice and support of their doctor and family. It isn't an easy decision to have to make.

If you want to make a woman feel guilty for having to make the choice between life and death, then yes, religion will succeed in its mission. It is black or white. But you won't stop a woman needing an abortion, if that is what she requires.

Just because I accept the obvious truth that an abortion is murder then that does not mean that I myself am totally against it.

Some times people simply have to murder (or more politely to kill) as like some times we must kill a criminal, and some times we have to kill a dangerous person, and as you say mercy killing, and human beings have a long tradition of killing our babies.

The old old days most people waited for the baby to be born and then kill the unwanted child, it use to be that babies were sacrificed in public rituals, and in old Rome it was common to see a baby's body laying dead on any trash pile, and in old Greece they had some form of poison that would cause a miscarriage as recorded in the Hippocratic Oath.

My own grievance is against the Abortionist (the person doing the abortion rather than the parents) because the abortionist is the true murderer, while there are lots of excuses (reasons to excuse) the 2 parents.

As like our ignorant societies in the West are hateful to parents and hateful to children, so if the parents do not get the abortion then our evil society will punish each of the parents in so many ways that parents really are pressured to kill their unborn baby at the hands of a legalized murderer Abortionist, and that is what I say needs to be corrected.

If our hate-filled societies in the West would stop our hatred against parents and against children, and then if we would start celebrating all new born babies then the abortionist would run very low on such innocent customers.

As to having severely disabled children then Adolf Hitler wrote about that in his infamous "Mein Kamph" and he pointed out that the Doctors work feverishly to save the weak and unhealthy babies while discarding and killing the healthy babies, which thereby destroys the gene pool.

Plus religion is the only place where the Woman or the father can find forgiveness for their part in the abortionist murdering their baby.

stu wrote:I think what makes it such an emotive subject Sheldon is the fact that it is a baby, and that's when your own and most peoples protective instincts come out. Just about 95% of the population when asked about a baby, picture it at 3months old in nappies. If they have children or grandchildren then they picture them, not as the ten year olds they are now but when they were younger, as people believe it or not prefer the children at that age cos everyone goes awe bless when they see them. It is called natural instinct. that is the psychology part of my nursing coming out.

Exactly what I meant stu, but when the anti-abortionist theist use the word baby to refer to a Blastocyst, literally a collection of cells that is not yet sentient, and can't feel pain, then it's just an attempt to indulge that instinct and emotion, which of course doesn't help further the debate. In the same way they then claim that a foetus has no legal rights in countries where abortion is legal, which is of course not true. Nor is it true that murder is being committed, precisely for those reasons. The problem is of course the real debate is then lost in hysteria when this kind of pointless hyperbole and empty rhetoric are introduced into the debate.

Just because I accept the obvious truth that an abortion is murder then that does not mean that I myself am totally against it. Some times people simply have to murder (or more politely to kill) as like some times we must kill a criminal, and some times we have to kill a dangerous person, and as you say mercy killing, and human beings have a long tradition of killing our babies.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Abortion is not murder, nor is a termination carried out on babies, the law does not allow that, and it would be murder. Like Abraham you mean, and your god? Your god has murdered a lot of babies of course, accrding to your bible, and your Christian scholars.

It is still murder though, and I say we need to deal with that truth.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Abortion is not murder.

My own grievance is against the Abortionist (the person doing the abortion rather than the parents) because the abortionist is the true murderer, while there are lots of excuses (reasons to excuse) the 2 parents.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Abortion is not murder.

As like our ignorant societies in the West are hateful to parents and hateful to children,

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:More idiotic drivel, the west has the best medical care for childbirth, and prenatal care, and education for children, including girls that your fascist Islamic friends would rather see dead than grant equal rights to.

so if the parents do not get the abortion then our evil society will punish each of the parents in so many ways that parents really are pressured to kill their unborn baby at the hands of a legalized murderer Abortionist, and that is what I say needs to be corrected.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Abortion is not murder, and since you're lying hand over fist perhaps you'd like to list six different ways "our evil society will punish each of the parents", as you're just making up nonsense again.

If our hate-filled societies in the West would stop our hatred against parents and against children, and then if we would start celebrating all new born babies then the abortionist would run very low on such innocent customers.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Abortions are never carried out on babies, parents are not hated in the west, nor are babies or children, what utter drivel you talk. We have the best medical care for childbirth in the west that you claim hate babies and parents. We have the best education for our children, girls as well as boys, unlike the theocratic fascist states you love, where girls who step out of line are beaten, tortured, raped, and even killed just for wanting the same equality girls have in the west.

As to having severely disabled children then Adolf Hitler wrote about that in his infamous "Mein Kamph" and he pointed out that the Doctors work feverishly to save the weak and unhealthy babies while discarding and killing the healthy babies, which thereby destroys the gene pool.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Abortion is not carried out on babies, eugenics is not analogous to abortion, and when in the west a mother makes the heartbreaking decision to seek a termination because the baby is shown by our expert medical care as being so severely disabled that it may not survive childbirth, and if it does would suffer greatly and die very young, they can do without being compared to Hitler you heartless cretin.

Plus religion is the only place where the Woman or the father can find forgiveness for their part in the abortionist murdering their baby.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Abortion is not murder, abortions are not carried out on babies. As for parents only being forgiven by religion for having a termination, it's only heartless idiotic theists like yourself that on top of the emotional trauma they're already going through try and make them feel even more guilty with bullshit about your imaginary god and it's imaginary sin, and that they need forgiving in the first place, christ on a bike that's a stupid thing to say, even for you.

Abortion is not murder, no matter how many times cretinous lunatics with soap for brains try and claim it is. If theists are so hysterical about abortion they might want to explain why their god aborts so many every year???

They might also want to support initiatives for sex education classes in schools to avoid unwanted pregnancies, they might also want to grow a spine and start condemning the actions of some of their fellow theists who criminally tell some of the poorest and least educated people in the world that they'll go to hell for wearing a latex condom, or for taking a pill that would negate the need for millions of abortions every year. Put up or shut up.....

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Abortion is not murder, and since you're lying hand over fist perhaps you'd like to list six different ways "our evil society will punish each of the parents", as you're just making up nonsense again.

Actually, it's not complete nonsense, at least not here in the USA. The fact that we don't have a nationalized health care system and still have to pay for our own medical expenses and medicines, having and raising a child can be frightfully expensive, especially a child that is disabled and requires a lot of hospital visits. Our entire health care system is corrupt, everyone greedily trying to siphon away as much money as possible. The hospitals charge ridiculous sums of money for even basic items ($50 for a bag of ice and a glass of orange juice) knowing that insurance will cover it, but then the insurance companies charge exhorbitant monthly premiums so they can afford to pay the exhorbitant doctors' fees and hospital visits. The end result, of course, is the average person has to pay huge amounts of money to keep their families covered - the average cost to insure a family of four is over $20,000 per year.

What's more is that the right-wingers in this country are all for Social Darwinism - if you're poor, young, or elderly, you don't really deserve health care because health care is a privilege instead of a right. They are constantly working to defund any kind of assistance program, and that includes government assistance for single mothers living in poverty.

The right-wingers are against contraception, they're against abortion, and they're against government assistance. If a woman gets pregnant, what choice would she have but to get rid of the baby somehow?

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Abortion is not murder, and since you're lying hand over fist perhaps you'd like to list six different ways "our evil society will punish each of the parents", as you're just making up nonsense again.

Actually, it's not complete nonsense, at least not here in the USA. The fact that we don't have a nationalized health care system and still have to pay for our own medical expenses and medicines, having and raising a child can be frightfully expensive, especially a child that is disabled and requires a lot of hospital visits. Our entire health care system is corrupt, everyone greedily trying to siphon away as much money as possible. The hospitals charge ridiculous sums of money for even basic items ($50 for a bag of ice and a glass of orange juice) knowing that insurance will cover it, but then the insurance companies charge exhorbitant monthly premiums so they can afford to pay the exhorbitant doctors' fees and hospital visits. The end result, of course, is the average person has to pay huge amounts of money to keep their families covered - the average cost to insure a family of four is over $20,000 per year.

What's more is that the right-wingers in this country are all for Social Darwinism - if you're poor, young, or elderly, you don't really deserve health care because health care is a privilege instead of a right. They are constantly working to defund any kind of assistance program, and that includes government assistance for single mothers living in poverty.

The right-wingers are against contraception, they're against abortion, and they're against government assistance. If a woman gets pregnant, what choice would she have but to get rid of the baby somehow?

I can't remember who wrote this wrote:Bellatori, to save me the hassle, and how many women have spontaneous miscarriages? Is that abortion too?

A few years ago, moronic right-wing pro-lifer politicians actually tried to pass a law requiring a criminal investigation every time a woman had a miscarriage. This is the kind of insane crap Americans have to put up with from our leaders ... and why what JP Cusick said about parents being punished isn't altogether untrue.

In an attempt to keep religion out of this matter a far more practical answer would be to use the existing science that can determine prior to any prospective parent becoming a parent the possibility of any child having any disability that would give the child a life not that of a normal child.

I am well aware, being involved on a weekly basis with handicapped people, that there are many amongst them that are far happier than those we call NORMAL. and who have given much love and affection throughout their life.

So the subject is not cut and dried.

Another possibility is for those not in a position to care for a child to keep their trowsers on.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Abortion is not murder, and since you're lying hand over fist perhaps you'd like to list six different ways "our evil society will punish each of the parents", as you're just making up nonsense again.

Actually, it's not complete nonsense, at least not here in the USA. The fact that we don't have a nationalized health care system and still have to pay for our own medical expenses and medicines, having and raising a child can be frightfully expensive, especially a child that is disabled and requires a lot of hospital visits. Our entire health care system is corrupt, everyone greedily trying to siphon away as much money as possible. The hospitals charge ridiculous sums of money for even basic items ($50 for a bag of ice and a glass of orange juice) knowing that insurance will cover it, but then the insurance companies charge exhorbitant monthly premiums so they can afford to pay the exhorbitant doctors' fees and hospital visits. The end result, of course, is the average person has to pay huge amounts of money to keep their families covered - the average cost to insure a family of four is over $20,000 per year.

What's more is that the right-wingers in this country are all for Social Darwinism - if you're poor, young, or elderly, you don't really deserve health care because health care is a privilege instead of a right. They are constantly working to defund any kind of assistance program, and that includes government assistance for single mothers living in poverty.

The right-wingers are against contraception, they're against abortion, and they're against government assistance. If a woman gets pregnant, what choice would she have but to get rid of the baby somehow?

America is very different to the UK which I was referring to, perhaps I failed to make that clear. JP was using a generalisation of "the west" which is nonsense, as it implies the position is better elsewhere, where might that be? Your comments on the health care system in the USA are very true of course, and salient to us as the Tories are busy trying to ruin the NHS as we speak. I may be wrong here, but weren't Obama's health care reforms, that the far right (christians) tried their best to scupper, meant to address precisely these issues, and improve health care for the poorest citizens in the USA? The end of your post is actually agreeing with mine and disagreeing with JP's I think, as his implication was that the godless west cared less for families parents and children, when in fact it is generally the christian right's policies that do this, despite their rhetoric about family values.

I live in South Wales in the UK and despite the town I live in being the largest town in the health board it has no A&E department. First time in my 48 years that has been the case, you have to love the Tories and their cuts...

JP - 'My own grievance is against the Abortionist (the person doing the abortion rather than the parents) because the abortionist is the true murderer, while there are lots of excuses (reasons to excuse) the 2 parents.'

Pointing the finger at the perpetrator of the 'crime' serves no purpose. Have you thought about what would happen to the thousands of women needing an abortion, if you succeeded in criminalising it? How would the health service deal with botched back street, or home abortions? It's too simplistic to suggest that banning abortions would remove the need. But at least you'll have the satisfaction of having it your own way, eh?

JP Cusick wrote:As like our ignorant societies in the West are hateful to parents and hateful to children, so if the parents do not get the abortion then our evil society will punish each of the parents in so many ways that parents really are pressured to kill their unborn baby at the hands of a legalized murderer Abortionist, and that is what I say needs to be corrected.

If our hate-filled societies in the West would stop our hatred against parents and against children, and then if we would start celebrating all new born babies then the abortionist would run very low on such innocent customers.

Apparently my meaning here got sidetracked and so I want clear that up some.

Parents (both mothers and fathers) are degraded and punished in our western societies through the ignorant divorce industry along with the barbaric Child Support and Custody laws which destroy the family unit and turns parenting into a crime and turns parents into criminals just for having a baby / a child, which is all based on the hatred of marriage and hatred against parents and hatred of children.

So if the parents (both mother and father) do not murder their unborn baby by abortion then those same parents will face severe mistreatment by society and by law for letting their baby be born.

============================================

Kazza wrote:Pointing the finger at the perpetrator of the 'crime' serves no purpose. Have you thought about what would happen to the thousands of women needing an abortion, if you succeeded in criminalising it? How would the health service deal with botched back street, or home abortions? It's too simplistic to suggest that banning abortions would remove the need. But at least you'll have the satisfaction of having it your own way, eh?

If a woman truly needs an abortion then I support that, as like her life is in danger, but that is very few times as that does not happen very often.

The other kind of "need" where the mother is being pressured to let her own baby to be killed by some Abortionist, then I say we need to help the mother to escape that need.

If we as a society would start welcoming every new born baby as being a wonderful happy event then the desire to kill the baby would be greatly reduced.

I go for reducing the need for an abortion first, instead of banning all abortions.

stu wrote:Long way to go to a+e Sheldon, that's why I have a lot of people contact me for advice, knowing that Iuse to be a nurse.

They've downgraded our A&E steadily for a few years, and now it is just a couple of nurses, with a GP on call, with no attending doctor or consultant, for a town of 60,000 people. Absolutely scandalous.

JP Cusick wrote:As like our ignorant societies in the West are hateful to parents and hateful to children, so if the parents do not get the abortion then our evil society will punish each of the parents in so many ways that parents really are pressured to kill their unborn baby at the hands of a legalized murderer Abortionist, and that is what I say needs to be corrected.

If our hate-filled societies in the West would stop our hatred against parents and against children, and then if we would start celebrating all new born babies then the abortionist would run very low on such innocent customers.

Apparently my meaning here got sidetracked and so I want clear that up some.

Parents (both mothers and fathers) are degraded and punished in our western societies through the ignorant divorce industry along with the barbaric Child Support and Custody laws which destroy the family unit and turns parenting into a crime and turns parents into criminals just for having a baby / a child, which is all based on the hatred of marriage and hatred against parents and hatred of children.

So if the parents (both mother and father) do not murder their unborn baby by abortion then those same parents will face severe mistreatment by society and by law for letting their baby be born.

============================================

Kazza wrote:Pointing the finger at the perpetrator of the 'crime' serves no purpose. Have you thought about what would happen to the thousands of women needing an abortion, if you succeeded in criminalising it? How would the health service deal with botched back street, or home abortions? It's too simplistic to suggest that banning abortions would remove the need. But at least you'll have the satisfaction of having it your own way, eh?

If a woman truly needs an abortion then I support that, as like her life is in danger, but that is very few times as that does not happen very often.

The other kind of "need" where the mother is being pressured to let her own baby to be killed by some Abortionist, then I say we need to help the mother to escape that need.

If we as a society would start welcoming every new born baby as being a wonderful happy event then the desire to kill the baby would be greatly reduced.

I go for reducing the need for an abortion first, instead of banning all abortions.

Abortion does not murder babies, our laws prohibit this. Do try and post facts, not hyperbole ridden clichés. If you want to be taken seriously that is. There is also mountains of evidence to show that children are far more damaged by defective parental relationships being maintained rather than the parents getting a divorce. Again your claims are driven by simplistic dogma, instead of intelligent cogent logic, based on evidence.

I'd also like to reduce the need for abortions, so you agree that sex education in schools is paramount, along with free contraception?

Edit: I meant free contraception for adults btw not in schools.

Last edited by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sun Oct 27, 2013 10:14 am; edited 1 time in total

JP Cusick wrote:The other kind of "need" where the mother is being pressured to let her own baby to be killed by some Abortionist, then I say we need to help the mother to escape that need.

I have no idea how abortion is controlled in the states, but in the uk medical professional do not seek out women to pressure into abortion. You're again indulging your desire to make risible and simplistic generalisations.

Last edited by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sun Oct 27, 2013 10:14 am; edited 1 time in total